1. This judgment would dispose of the aforesaid two appeals as identical facts and the common questions are involved in both appeals. The appellants filed eviction applications before the Rent Controller, Karachi, Cantonment, against the respondents for eviction from a portion of the premises bearing No. 40-A, situated in Dolly Khatta, Soldier Bazar, Karachi, on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as bona fide personal use and occupation of respondent No.2: There was a litigation between Abdul Haq, predecessor-in---interest of the appellants and a Parsi gentleman, who was an auction-purchaser of the property from Settlement Authorities, which was resolved in Constitutional petition No. S-114/1987. In fact, it was dismissed by the High Court on 30- 8-1987. The premises were initially transferred to the said Abdul Haq but the issuance of transfer order was delayed due to litigation between appellants and the Parsi gentleman before the Settlement Authorities as well as the High Court of Sindh. The transfer order was actually issued in favour of appellants on 14-2-1988 whereafter they filed two separate rent cases before the Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment Karachi, seeking the ejectment of the respondents.
2. Respondents in each case resisted the ejectment denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and claiming that the property being a temple could not have been legally transferred under the provisions of Settlement Laws. In the earlier round of litigation between the parties the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction applications and his orders were challenged before this Court in F.RAs: Nos. 258/89 and 259/89. In both the F.RAs., by consent of the counsel for parties impugned orders were set aside and the cases were remanded to the Controller to enable the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. Accordingly both the parties adduced evidence. Upon consideration of the evidence on record learned Additional Controller settled two issues, firstly, "whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties"?
3. And secondly "what should the order be"? On issue No.1, after taking into consideration the evidence of the Tax Superintendent of the Cantonment Board and Court Clerk of the Military Estates Officer, the Controller came to the conclusion that the premises not having been mutated in the name of the appellants in the records of the Cantonment Board and the Military Estates Officer there was a genuine and reasonable doubt about their title to the property. He, therefore, dismissed both the rent cases and directed that the appellants should approach the Civil Court for declaration of their title in respect of property. These appeals are directed against this common order passed in the rent cases.
4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties I am unable to sustain the view of the learned Controller that simply because the property transferred in favour of appellants had not been mutated in their favour in the records of the Cantonment Board there was a genuine doubt about their title to property. Entries in the records of the Cantonment Board are primarily meant for taxation purpose so that water and conservancy charges, cantonment taxes could be recovered from the owner or the occupant of the premises situated within the limits of Cantonment Board.
5. The respondents having admitted that they had been paying rent of the premises to the administration of Hanuman Temple to whom the property belonged, cannot be allowed to say that the property had been wrongly transferred in favour of the appellants. They had even produced certain rent receipts for payment of rent to the Custodian Department which would show that they were occupying the premises long before the transfer of the property in favour of appellants. After the transfer of the premises in favour of appellants by the Settlement Department and after' the abolition of the Custodian Department it would appear that they had acquired a valuable right in the property and thus entitled to recover rents from the tenants thereof.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in each appeal has relied upon the judgment reported in PLD 1990 Lahore 48, in support of his contention and argued that in the event of a doubt about the title of the landlord, Rent Controller could refer the landlord to have his title decided by a Civil Court but in the circumstances of the case there appeared hardly any doubt about the ownership and title of the appellants to recover the rents or to seek the ejectment of the tenant in their capacity as landlord. The judgment above-referred does not cover the instant case.
7. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases to the Rent Controller for decision on merits keeping in view above observations. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.